I really like how they stated businesses offering encryption services need to provide a way to "unscramble" (not decrypt.. lol) it. That would probably mean if my site ran SSL for legitimate purposes, to protect my customers, and was hosted at an ISP, the SSL encryption mechanism would need to be easily "unscrambled". That would change the meaning of encryption to obfuscation. Terrorists could then easily "hack" financial information to fund their terror campaigns. lol

I really like how they stated businesses offering encryption services need to provide a way to "unscramble" (not decrypt.. lol) it. That would probably mean if my site ran SSL for legitimate purposes, to protect my customers, and was hosted at an ISP, the SSL encryption mechanism would need to be easily "unscrambled". That would change the meaning of encryption to obfuscation. Terrorists could then easily "hack" financial information to fund their terror campaigns. lol

i agree.... seems like PATRIOT ACT 2.0 or something to me...

"We're talking about lawfully authorized intercepts," said FBI lawyer Valerie E. Caproni. "We're not talking about expanding authority. We're talking about preserving our ability to execute our existing authority in order to protect the public safety and national security."

that is until the government requests information about subscribers with out a lawful court order, as they did to the telephone companies during the bush administration - and then provided those companies who helped the government break the wiretap laws with retroactive immunity...